Tax Management India. Com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Teracom Ltd., Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav, GM And Shri Shyam Lal Garwal Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur - I

2016 (8) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Maintainability - lack of jurisdiction of Central Excise officers in Sikar, Rajasthan for initiating action regarding the duty liability of the appellant unit which is located in Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand - Held that:- in terms of jurisdiction of various officers as notified by Ministry of Finance in terms of power conferred by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 the appellant fall under the jurisdiction of Meerut-I Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner Sikar who is falling unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

against the appellant unit in Uttrakhand to determine the eligibility or otherwise of the appellant for a duty benefit. - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine - seizure of goods and truck - denial of exemption under Notification 50/2003-CE - appellants were not manufacturing the aerial bunched cables in their unit at Uttrakhand whereas procuring these items from elsewhere and carrying out some process of painting, numbering and putting inspection seal and clearing them without payment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant - Excise Appeal No. 55400-55401 and 55425 of 2014 (SM) - Final Order No. 51892-51894/2016 - Dated:- 27-5-2016 - SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran :- These three appeals are against the common order on the same issue and, hence, taken up together for disposal. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the main appellant and the other two individuals for denying the exemption under Notification 50/2003-CE; for confiscation of seized goods, truck and for imposition of various penalties. The main allegation against the respondent is that they were not manufacturing the impugned cables in their unit at Uttrakhand ; they were procuring these items from elsewhere and carrying out some process of painting, numbering and putting inspection seal. They are clearing these goods without payment of duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

000/- on the third appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order and rejected the appeals. The present appeals were preferred against the said order. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the main appellant is located in Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand. They are falling under the jurisdiction of Meerut I Commissionerate. The present show cause notice has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sikar, Rajasthan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version